DISCLAIMER The attached minutes are DRAFT minutes. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, statements and decisions recorded in them, their status will remain that of a draft until such time as they are confirmed as a correct record at the subsequent meeting. Agenda item no. 7(a) Bristol City Council Minutes of a meeting of the Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission Held on 19 March 2014 at 5pm P Councillor Weston (in the Chair) P Councillor Green A Councillor Lucas (Councillor Hiscott as substitute) P Councillor Martin P Councillor Negus P Councillor Pearce P Councillor Threlfall A Councillor Willingham P Councillor Wollacott SDT 57.3/14 Apologies for absence, substitutions and introductions. Apologies were received from Councillors Willingham and Lucas with Councillor Hiscott as substitute for Councillor Lucas. SDT 58.3/14 Public Forum The Public Forum bundle was circulated to Members in advance of the meeting and a copy placed in the Minute Book. Statements. Agenda item Subject Author PFS19.3.14/ Building on Dave N/A the success of Redgewell – 01 the Bristol South West Bus Upgrades Transport Network South West Dave N/A Rail Plan – An Redgewell – 02 opportunity for South West the West Transport Network Agenda item Subject Author PFS19.3.14/ 17 Filton Bank Christina Stations, Biggs - 03 Henbury Loop FOSBR and Severn Beach Line 17 Re-opening of Alison Henbury Loop Devonshire – 04 Line in Metro BS10 Parks West Phase 2 and Planning in tandem with Phase 1 RESOLVED – 1) That statements PFS19.3.14/01 and /02 be noted. 2) That statements PFS19.3.14/03 and /04 be referred to the appropriate Service Director for direct response. SDT 59.3/14 Declarations of interest. Councillor Negus reported that he was the Chair of the Bristol Buildings Preservation Trust Ltd. SDT 60.3/14 Whipping. There was none. SDT 61.3/14 Minutes – Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission – 13 February 2014. It was agreed that the following bullet point be added before the existing first bullet point of Minute 53.02/14 – European Green Capital 2015. ‘The Commission wished to express dissatisfaction at the lack of report before the meeting and the rehash of previous presentations’. RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission held on 13th February 2014 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the amendment referred to above, and signed by the Chair. SDT 62.3/14 Action sheet – 13 February 2014 RESOLVED – that the action sheet be noted. SDT 63.3/14 Chair’s business. The Chair reported that the extraordinary meeting scheduled for 27 March to consider the Patchway/ Cribbs Causeway development would take place at Armada House as there was insufficient space to accommodate such a meeting at City Hall. SDT 64.3/14 Work programme 2013/14 The Chair took the opportunity to thank the Commission members for the past year of scrutiny work and noted that there had been some contentious issues to consider. He expressed concern at the current proposals for the future of scrutiny which he understood was to reduce to three Commission’s only of OSM, Resources and Health and believed that with these proposals scrutiny would be reduced so far it could not improve but would instead prevent scrutiny. It was noted that a meeting would be held next week with Scrutiny Chairs. Commission members responded as follows:- • Councillor Pearce believed there was very little to commend the proposals as it would effectively eliminate the capacity for policy development and emphasised the importance of scrutiny as a means of public participation; • Councillor Martin extended his thanks to the Chair for this year and stated that he had particularly enjoyed this year’s scrutiny. He feared that current proposals would mean that areas of scrutiny would be cherry picked after the imposition of policy and this was a dangerous development; • Councillor Negus feared that proposals would marginalise public participation which would defeat the objective of scrutiny. The government had previously emphasised the need for good scrutiny when promoting the Mayoral system. The Commission had made many sensible recommendations and to abandon such work would be detrimental to democracy in the City. He proposed that a formal representation be submitted on this matter; • Councillor Woolacott noted that democracy could be irksome and longwinded but was an essential part of governance. He believed that scrutiny appeared to be an inconvenience for the Mayor; • Councillor Khan thanked the Chair for his work this year. He noted that there was cross-party consensus regarding the importance of scrutiny, and in particular a Commission similar to this one. He urged the Commission to be vocal about it; • Councillor Green believed the SD&T Scrutiny Commission was the most important of all the Commissions as its areas of remit were key to the success of the Council. She could not envisage how proper scrutiny could be undertaken under the new proposals when there was currently insufficient time. She felt strongly that a Commission like SD&T was needed and that sufficient time was given to do thorough work; • The Chair therefore proposed and it was agreed that a statement be made to OSM tomorrow and that Councillor Pearce who would be in attendance at OSM, speak to the statement. RESOLVED – 1) that the work programme 2013/14 be noted. 2) That a statement be submitted to OSM detailing the Commission’s concern regarding the future of scrutiny and this be presented by Councillor Pearce. SDT 65.3/14 Democratising cycling inquiry: Update on recommendations and cycling strategy. The commission considered a report of the Service Director, Planning and Place Strategy (agenda item no. 8) providing an update on the action plan agreed in response to the SD&T report ‘Democratising cycling: Making it safer’ approved by full Council on 20 November 2012 and providing an update on the development of the Bristol cycle strategy and steps taken to ensure an appropriate “place” based approach is adopted when delivering improvements to the public realm. Ben Robinson, Team Manager, City Transport, was in attendance and introduced the report. The following comments arose from discussion:- • The Chair referred to Appendix A, item 7. It was noted that particular corridors and routes, such as the A38, had competing demands on a finite resource ie. the road width. It was important to form interdisciplinary teams to work out a strategy. The use of virtual teams for quality assurance was questioned; • Councillor Pearce referred to Item 9, Appendix A. He reported that the experimental TRO on Conham Road had been incredibly contentious. He believed that the road should be made one way. Ben Robinson replied that the Council had the legal ability to use TRO’s to improve cycling facilities but it was a different matter whether the end product was what was wanted; • It was reported that Bristol Cycling Strategy update should be available in May/June 2014; • Councillor Negus stated that Bristol had been successful in acquiring Cycling City status as it was a difficult city to make cycling work well and yet Appendix A appeared to be revisiting Cycling City work rather than building on that work. He also believed there were opportunities around the Gloucester Road for cycle priority streets. However, the Harbourside was a protected area as it was important that pedestrians were free to walk without the possibility of cyclists running into them. He referred to Appendix C stating that it was necessary to publicise safety measures in order to make cycling more attractive for the public. He also referred to the number of cyclists who were ‘cut-up’ by lorries turning left and noted that a £500 safety device could be fitted to lorries to prevent this. He proposed that lorries should be charged when entering the city unless they had a safety device fitted; • Councillor Martin referred to Theme 2 and felt that it was important to address the ‘them and us’ issue regarding cyclists and car users as the city was multi modal. He added that older residents felt somewhat oppressed and guilty as they were unable to cycle. It was important to get the right message out that cycling was a voluntary activity and that people should do what they could and this way the ‘them and us’ would not exist. He also referred to Theme 3, bullet point 1 and suggested caution as any traffic cells that took cars out of the equation needed to be though through so as to not cause another problem; • Councillor Green believed it was the lack of consultation that had not helped the sense of ‘them and us’. She also felt that more attention should be made to walking and noted that the heritage of some public paths were being destroyed with cycle paths added to them and fast cyclists using them; • Councillor Threlfall felt that lessons could be learned from other European Cities so that the right thing was done for Bristol. She added that bike crime was an issue in Bristol of which she had direct experience and asked how these issues could be included in an Action Plan. Ben Robinson stated that it was important that the right imagery around convenience, cost and freedom was conveyed rather than the green image. He appreciated that the consultation period for new routes was not long but timescales were tight and these routes would help define the network. Cycle crime enforcement was an on-going issue and was being tackled in various ways. Work had been done in schools to promote bike tags, investing in good locks was generally promoted and Sheffield stands were being installed around Bristol; • It was noted that the Council had a commitment to invest £20 per head of population to encourage the next generation of cyclists through the cycling ambition fund, cycle safety and sustainable transport fund.